Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:144073 Court No. - 67 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26123 of 2025 Applicant :- Khem Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Amitrana Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pramod Kumar Pandey Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J. 1-On the matter being taken up, Sri Pramod Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the complainant is not present. 2-Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. 3-By means of this bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S., applicant- Khem Singh, who is involved in Case Crime No.80 of 2025, under Sections 109(1), 351(3), 3(5), 352 of B.N.S., 2023, Police Station Shivala Kalan, District Bijnor seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial. 4-Brief facts of the case, which are required to be stated are that the complainant, who is brother of the victim got a first information report lodged on 08.06.2025 for the offence under Sections 109(1), 351(3), 3(5), 352 of B.N.S., 2023 against Veer Singh, Rajveer and Khem Singh (applicant) making allegation inter-alia that on 16.7.25 at about 11.15 PM, his brother Kuldeep Kumar came at the side of the road for responding nature’s call, at that time, Veer Singh of his village came there with his dog and provoked his dog towards his brother Kuldeep, as a result, dog had bitten on the leg of his brother Kuldeep. When Kuldeep asked the accused Veer Singh to stop his dog, then he called his brother Rajveer and Khem Singh who came at the spot armed with kasla and caused serious injuries on Kuldeep’s head. He took his brother to Government Hospital, Noorpur. 5-Main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. Though in the F.l.R., general role of assault has been attributed to all the named accused persons by the complainant, who is not an eye witness of the incident but when statement of injured Kuldeep was recorded, he has made general allegation of abusing and committing marpeet against all the accused persons but he has specified that co-accused Veer Singh, who was having iron rod in his hand assaulted him on his head and chick whereby he received serious injuries. Referring the injury report of injured Kuldeep, it is further submitted that he has received three injuries in the nature of lacerated wound, out of which, injury no.1 which is on right side of temporal region of skull of the injured Kuldeep has been attributed to be caused by co-accused Veer Singh. It is further submitted that injury no.1 was kept under observation but in supplementary report, no abnormality has been detected and remaining two injuries are on non vital part of the body and same are simple in nature. It is pointed out that in the said incident, accused- applicant Khem Singh as well as Rajveer and Rajbala have also received four injuries, two injuries and two injuries respectively but in the F.I.R. dated 08.06.2025, there is no explanation of said injuries. It is further submitted that the incident has not taken place in the manner as alleged by the prosecution, therefore, the applicant, who is languishing in jail since 10.06.2025 may be enlarged on bail. Lastly, it is submitted that in case, he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 6-On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State opposed the prayer for bail by contending that all the accused persons named in the F.I.R. were indulged in the said incident with their different role but he could not dispute the factual aspect of the matter as argued on behalf of the applicant. 7-Having heard the submission of learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find that injured in his statement has attributed the specific role of assault with “Kasla” on his head to co-accused Veer Singh, which is corroborated from the injury no.1 of the injured Kuldeep. Hence, case of the present applicant is distinguishable from co-accused Veer Singh. 8-Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the reasons as mentioned above, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a prima facie case for bail. Accordingly, the bail application is hereby allowed. 9-Let the applicant- Khem Singh, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) That the applicant shall cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the trial and shall regularly attend the court unless inevitable. (ii) That the applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) That after his release, the applicant shall not involve in any criminal activity. (iv) The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned before the release of the applicant on bail. 10-In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant. 11-It is made clear that benefit/parity of this order shall not be extended to the co-accused Veer Singh. Order Date :- 21.8.2025 Sanjeet Digitally signed by :- SANJEET KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad